AEA Announces 2016 American Energy Champions

Today the American Energy Alliance is pleased to announce its inaugural 2016 American Energy Champion award recipients. This award goes to members of the House and Senate who scored a 90 percent or higher on AEA’s American Energy Scorecard.

“This award goes to the members of Congress who have demonstrated a commitment to pro-growth polices that will lead to more affordable energy for American families,” said AEA President Thomas Pyle.

“Just this week, White House senior advisor Brian Deese took credit for the Administration’s war on affordable and reliable energy, which has decimated whole communities in this country and has set the United States on a path toward higher energy prices. Given this regulatory onslaught, it is vital that we grow the ranks of American Energy Champions in Congress who remain dedicated to free-market principles and will fight for less government intrusion into Americans’ energy choices,” Pyle added.

“We’re encouraged by the results of our inaugural scorecard and are confident that it will continue to be an important tool for holding Congress accountable and educating the American people about where their elected officials stand on crucial energy issues.”

On the House side, AEA scored 27 votes and cosponsored three bills, including bills to eliminate the wind Production Tax Credit and the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS). On the Senate side, AEA scored 15 votes and cosponsored a bill to eliminate the RFS.

2016 American Energy Champions  

(100 percent scores in bold)

Senate

Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY)
Sen. Benjamin Sasse (R-NE) Sen. James Lankford (R-OK)
Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-AK) Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA)
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) Sen. Michael Enzi (R-WY)
Sen. Deb Fischer (R-NE) Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX)
Sen. Steve Daines (R-MT) Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT)
Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC)
Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) Sen. Joni Ernst (R-IA)
Sen. Patrick Toomey (R-PA) Sen. David Perdue (R-GA)
Sen. John Thune (R-SD) Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC)
Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL) Sen. Jerry Moran (R-KS)
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) Sen. John McCain (R-AZ)
Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV)
Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC)
Sen. Michael Crapo (R-ID) Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
Sen. John Boozman (R-AR) Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK)
Sen. Jefferson Sessions (R-AL) Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN)
Sen. James Risch (R-ID)

 

House

Rep. Brian Babin (R-TX) Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY)
Rep. Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) Rep. Robert Wittman (R-VA)
Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-CO) Rep. Steve Chabot (R-OH)
Rep. Raúl Labrador (R-ID) Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (R-GA)
Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) Rep. Mo Brooks (R-AL)
Rep. Sam Johnson (R-TX) Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN)
Rep. Andy Harris (R-MD) Rep. Marlin Stutzman (R-IN)
Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ) Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI)
Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA)
Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-KS)
Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ) Rep. Pete Olson (R-TX)
Rep. David Schweikert (R-AZ) Rep. Randy Neugebauer (R-TX)
Rep. David Roe (R-TN) Rep. David McKinley (R-WV)
Rep. Mick Mulvaney (R-SC) Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-NC)
Rep. Mark Walker (R-NC) Rep. Billy Long (R-MO)
Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-TX) Rep. David Rouzer (R-NC)
Rep. Kenny Marchant (R-TX) Rep. Rick Allen (R-GA)
Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R-GA) Rep. Lynn Jenkins (R-KS)
Rep. David Brat (R-VA) Rep. Bruce Westerman (R-AR)
Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) Rep. Robert Hurt (R-VA)
Rep. Scott Perry (R-PA) Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-KS)
Rep. Jim Bridenstine (R-OK) Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC)
Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC) Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC)
Rep. Bill Flores (R-TX) Rep. Randy Forbes (R-VA)
Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-SC) Rep. John Fleming (R-LA)
Rep. Ted Yoho (R-FL) Rep. Luke Messer (R-IN)
Rep. Scott DesJarlais (R-TN) Rep. Doug Collins (R-GA)
Rep. Diane Black (R-TN) Rep. Rick Crawford (R-AR)
Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) Rep. Michael Conaway (R-TX)
Rep. Bill Posey (R-FL) Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT)
Rep. Jeff Miller (R-FL) Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-KY)
Rep. John Culberson (R-TX) Rep. Michael Burgess (R-TX)
Rep. John Carter (R-TX) Rep. Scott Tipton (R-CO)
Rep. Austin Scott (R-GA) Rep. Rob Bishop (R-UT)
Rep. Alex Mooney (R-WV) Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX)
Rep. Mia Love (R-UT) Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI)
Rep. Tom McClintock (R-CA) Rep. Dennis Ross (R-FL)
Rep. Jody Hice (R-GA) Rep. Tom Price (R-GA)
Rep. Ken Buck (R-CO) Rep. Steve Russell (R-OK)
Rep. Randy Hultgren (R-IL) Rep. Bradley Byrne (R-AL)
Rep. Roger Williams (R-TX) Rep. Randy Weber (R-TX)
Rep. Brett Guthrie (R-KY) Rep. Tom Graves (R-GA)
Rep. Keith Rothfus (R-PA) Rep. Kay Granger (R-TX)
Rep. Brad Wenstrup (R-OH) Rep. Stephen Fincher (R-TN)
Rep. Scott Garrett (R-NJ) Rep. Sean Duffy (R-WI)
Rep. George Holding (R-NC) Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC)
Rep. Robert Pittenger (R-NC) Rep. Kevin Brady (R-TX)
Rep. Richard Hudson (R-NC) Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX)
Rep. Andy Barr (R-KY) Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX)
Rep. Blake Farenthold (R-TX) Rep. Reid Ribble (R-WI)
Rep. John Duncan (R-TN) Rep. Joseph Pitts (R-PA)
Rep. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) Rep. Tim Murphy (R-PA)
Rep. Doug LaMalfa (R-CA)

Click here to visit the American Energy Scorecard.

###

 

Fuel Economy Mandate Met with Congressional Criticism

At what point do federal regulations become too expensive to justify? The Energy and Commerce Committee dug into this question during a joint Subcommittee hearing on Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards. Turns out, CAFE standards contribute significantly to the rising sticker prices for new cars and unjustifiably hurt Americans. CAFE standards should be repealed or rapidly sunset.

Promulgated in response to the energy crisis of the 1970’s, CAFE standards were initially designed to decrease energy consumption by mandating mileage per gallon standards for a given auto manufacturers fleet. Now the Obama administration is tightening the standard by mandating that America’s fleet of new cars and trucks get on average 54 miles per gallon by 2025. In July, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released their Draft Technical Assessment Report (TAR), opening a comment period for the midterm review of the standards.

The Energy and Commerce hearing highlighted a number of issues with how current CAFE standards affect drivers and the damage the increasing standards will have. The question of cost was addressed multiple times, and for good reason. A Heritage Foundation study found that new vehicles are more than $6,000 more expensive than they would be if auto price trends remained the same since 2008.

In his written testimony, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers President and CEO Mitch Bainwol notes that NHTSA and EPA must take into account the rising cost of vehicles, especially in the context of stagnant income.

 

untitled

Source: http://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF17/20160922/105350/HHRG-114-IF17-Wstate-BainwolM-20160922.pdf

Further complicating things are incongruences between the NHTSA implementation of the standard and the EPA’s implementation. Several Representatives made specific note of this during the hearing. This inconsistency primarily manifests in the differences between the application of credit programs via the EPA and NHTSA. Both agencies offer credits for manufacturers who exceed fuel efficiency requirements for a given year. However, they are not implemented in the same manner, differing in terms of duration, applicability, and transferability. This leads to significant confusion and, ultimately, increased costs borne by manufacturers which are then passed onto consumers.

Representatives pressed the EPA and NHTSA to justify these regulations: what are they worth? As mentioned, CAFE standards originated as a way to reduce consumption of foreign oil during the energy crisis of the early 1970’s. However, the standards have since evolved to become a climate oriented regulatory action. The EPA claims CAFE standards are crucial for combating climate change. However, the EPA’s own analysis indicates otherwise. The administration explained that the 2017-2025 regulation would have next to zero climate impact. Per EPA, “the global mean temperature is projected to be reduced by approximately 0.0074–0.0176 °C by 2100, and sea-level rise is projected to be reduced by approximately 0.071–0.159 cm.” Any way you cut it, CAFE standards have no discernible climate impact in the real world and impose a hefty cost on consumers.

At the end of the day, CAFE standards are unnecessary. Auto manufacturers will make cars with higher fuel efficiency on their own volition because gas mileage is an important factor for consumers looking to purchase a new car. CAFE standards do nothing but drive up the cost of vehicles, forcing manufacturers to pass on costs to consumers. Congress should look to repeal or sunset CAFE standards as soon as possible.

 

 

Obama’s Fuel Economy Mandate Threatens the American Dream of Mobility

WASHINGTON – Today the American Energy Alliance released a new video highlighting the consequences of the Obama administration’s Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards. This mandate requires that America’s fleet of new cars and trucks get on average 54 miles per gallon by 2025—if EPA’s assumptions are correct.

AEA’s video, which also features an interview with Congressman Mike Kelly, tells the story of Nelcy Grande, whose ability to buy a car allowed her to start and grow her own cleaning business and send her daughters to college. Nelcy was able to achieve her dream, but the CAFE standards could prevent millions of people from purchasing a vehicle and achieving theirs.

Watch the video below:

Research shows that the CAFE standards are already making cars and trucks more expensive. A study from the Heritage Foundation shows that new vehicles are more than $6,000 more expensive than they would be if auto price trends remained the same since 2008.

AEA is also directing its activists to submit comments to the EPA for the midterm review of the CAFE standards.

###

What Congress is doing about EPA’s heavy-handed methane regulations

Last week, the House Science Committee Environment Subcommittee held a hearing regarding the Environmental Protection Agency’s new methane regulations. The hearing highlighted the dangers of these regulations and the Administration’s continuing attacks on domestic natural gas and oil production.

The EPA finalized new source performance standards for methane emissions earlier this spring. Unsurprisingly, the rule has a hefty price tag. EPA pegged the cost at $530 million in 2025 (using a 7 percent discount rate). The American Petroleum Institute explains that this rule could costs motorists $550 in higher gasoline costs over the course of a year and cost the average family an additional $1,337 in disposable income.

While the natural gas and oil sector has been reducing methane emissions for years, the Independent Petroleum Association of America explains that “parts of the EPA’s final rules appear to remove flexibilities for producers and could actually undermine industry’s progress” in lowering methane emissions on their own. The National Association of Manufacturers also stated that the methane rule would jeopardize access to reliable energy for businesses across the economy.

Congress seems to have gotten the message. The Subcommittee hearing focused on the intense burdens the rule would place not only on the energy industry, but ultimately on American families.

Most central to the debate surrounding the methane rule is just how little it will actually do for the environment. In reality, oil and gas production has increased 26 percent since 2005, while methane emissions from such production has decreased 38 percent. The energy sector has already made strides in reducing methane emissions on its own and will continue to do so. That’s because methane is the largest component of natural gas, and allowing methane to escape results in a lost profit opportunity. Further regulation is not only unwarranted and unnecessary, but economically damaging.

Congress has taken some strides in combatting this harmful regulation. In addition to the hearing, Rep. Jenkins introduced H.R. 5668, the Transparency and Honesty in Energy Regulations Act. This bill would prohibit agencies from using the so-called social cost of methane metric, a scientifically dubious and arbitrary metric that the EPA used to justify its methane rule. Congress should also look to introduce a Congressional Review Act bill, similar to what they did with the Waters of the United States rule.

While progress has been made in fighting the methane rule at the Congressional level, more should be done. Congress should continue to oppose the rule and fight to keep energy affordable, reliable, and accessible.

The Obama Administration’s Political Attack on the Dakota Access Pipeline

The Dakota Access Pipeline is a 1,170 mile pipeline project currently under construction in the northern plains. The pipeline, spanning four states, would transport oil from North Dakota, through South Dakota and Iowa, onto its terminus in Patoka, Illinois. However, what should be a standard, albeit significant, infrastructure project, has come into the national limelight as a hot button debate over energy transportation.

Announced in 2014, the DAP was intended to be a safe alternative to rail transportation. If completed, the pipeline would be able to safely send roughly a half-million barrels of oil every day. Dakota Access, LLP, explains that the pipeline would not only increase energy security as it disperses oil from the wildly productive Bakken production area, but would also have a major contribution to local economies. They found that 8,000 to 12,000 jobs would be created for construction and $55.5 million in state revenues in 2017 alone. Not to mention the increase in affordable, reliable energy to the entire nation.

During the permit process, the North Dakota Public Service Commission held public meetings to explain the pipeline and route, and to gain public input. Dakota Access met with the Standing Rock Sioux tribe beginning in September 2014 to explain the route and process. The Standing Rock Sioux, however, did not protest nor did they file written testimony in opposition to the pipeline. The opposition came only after the permits were issued.

After all of the public meetings and outreach, and after the permits to build the pipeline were issued, some Native American tribes claimed the pipeline infringed on sacred tribal lands. However, the Army Corps of Engineers approved permits for construction in late July, which should have assuaged any remaining questions as to pipeline compliance. While tribes have been protesting since early 2016, the construction process has continued.

After state and federal permits were issued, environmental activists started to get involved. These groups are trotting out celebrities and politicians to stop the pipeline, furthering their goal of keeping natural gas and oil in the ground. Their hope is to discourage natural resources development by limiting access. In light of the protests, the Department of Justice, Department of the Interior, and Army Corps of Engineers recently decided to stop construction as they review the permits they already issued.

This is hypocritical. As The Wall Street Journal notes:

Dakota Access went above and beyond the law’s requirements to mitigate its environmental impact. This meant devising the route to avoid sites on the National Register of Historic Places as well as those identified as potentially eligible for listing. Archaeologists conducted cultural surveys including visual reconnaissance and “shove-test probes” to examine historic sites. The pipeline was modified 140 times in North Dakota alone to avoid potential cultural resources. Around Lake Oahe, the pipeline will run adjacent to the Northern Border Gas Pipeline that was completed in 1982, which reduces the likelihood that construction would harm intact tribal features.

It does not take a legal or environmental expert to see this stoppage is the federal government capitulating to anti-energy activists. This has nothing to do with the environment whatsoever; those concerns have already been ameliorated. The WSJ further notes that, while Democrats have been harping for the need for increased infrastructure investment, that apparently does not apply to pipelines designed to more safely transport commodities. Hypocrisy abounds.

The administration’s actions are a transparently political attack on an already-approved pipeline project. If the opposition to the DAP was not enough during the comment period to convince the Army Corps of Engineers to not issue permits, then why are the protests now enough to order a stoppage? This whole saga is nothing but an attack on energy.

Labor Takes a Hit Under Obama’s Anti-Coal Policies

In 2008, President Obama famously said “…if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it’s just that it will bankrupt them…” With Labor Day earlier this week, it’s a reminder of how President Obama’s anti-energy policies have affected employment.

The Daily Caller reports that since President Obama came into office, America has 83,000 fewer coal jobs with the coal mining sector having lost nearly 11,000 jobs in 2015 alone. In addition, The Daily Caller also reports that 400 mines have shuttered during the Obama years.A study from the American Action Forum shows that the number of jobs lost could actually be much higher– estimating that over 180,000 miners have lost their jobs since 2008. While President Obama talks about helping working class families, the reality is that a torrent of regulations from Washington have stifled much needed growth and killed jobs.

These job losses come from regulations of all different shapes and sizes. AAF found that the Clean Power Plan alone could close 66 coal-fired power plants and kill an additional 125,800 jobs. Other disastrous regulations include the Interior Department’s coal moratorium, the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, Regional Haze regulations, the Stream Buffer Rule, and the lingering Cross State Air Pollution Rule. Combined, all of this red tape leads to huge job losses.

Energy is an important engine of the American economy and still has the potential to power the grid and job growth in the future. Policymakers should realize this and work towards sensible regulation instead of punishing American workers by bankrupting power plants. Hopefully our next President will be serious about economic growth and will roll back some of these policies for a more reasonable approach to energy.

Paris Climate Pact Remains Non-Binding, Meaningless

President Obama will likely “join” the Paris Climate Agreement during his upcoming trip to China. What does this mean? In reality, not much. That’s because the administration knew that a binding climate treaty would need to be voted on in the Senate. Instead, they worked hard to create a non-binding agreement, which they argue would not need to be ratified by the Senate (despite President Obama’s recent attempt to portray the agreement as a treaty). However, non-binding agreements by their very nature are non-binding for future administrations.

As of now, only 23 members of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change have ratified the agreement/treaty, representing a mere 1 percent of total global CO2 emissions. For the agreement/treaty to go into effect, 55 members of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, representing 55 percent of total global emissions, must ratify.

The problems with the Paris agreement are legion (as noted hereherehere, and here). These problems aside, whatever President Obama agrees to in China (or elsewhere during his Pacific Rim trip) won’t be binding for the United States. Here’s how legal expert David Wirth has explained the agreement:

The Executive Branch has indicated its intention to cement President Obama’s climate legacy by submitting its instrument of acceptance for the Paris Agreement by the end of this year.  As of this writing, that has not occurred. But even if it does, the U.S.’s crucial emissions reduction undertaking is still only a non-binding aspiration not governed by international law.

As far as this and other non-binding goals articulated under the Paris Agreement, President Donald Trump, who has voiced scepticism about anthropogenic climate change, need not go through a formal withdrawal process, as required by the Agreement and international law.  Instead, he need only say, “The United States changed its mind.” [Emphasis added.]

The bottom line is, for the agreement to actually have any force, it must be a treaty. Treaties must be ratified by two-thirds of the Senate (Article II, Section 2, U.S. Constitution). Any sort of legal or linguistic gymnastics have failed to assuage criticism and confusion both at home and abroad.

The Paris agreement is non-binding, carries no legal requirements for the United States, and should not be taken seriously.

 

 

Greens’ shady legal tactics to lock up American energy

Last week, activist groups WildEarth Guardians and Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR) filed a lawsuit seeking to force the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to review nearly 400 oil and gas leases on federal lands. If successful, the lawsuit would advance the radical “keep it in the ground” movement via shady legal tactics and further impair the nation’s fiscal health and energy security.

The lawsuit, filed in the D.C. District Court, challenges 397 oil and gas leases in Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah, covering 379,950 acres of land. WildEarth Guardians and PSR state that the BLM and the Department of Interior violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by failing to account for the climate impacts of approving said oil and gas leases. This suit follows recent assaults on energy development, namely the DOI’s decision to place a moratorium on coal leases on federal lands.

Plain and simple, this suit is an attempt to block federal lands from natural resources development, despite the fact that the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLMPA) specifically provides for “multiple use” of public lands (including energy development). These groups want to end all oil and gas development, and not just on federal lands. To do so, they turn to extra-legal tactics to circumvent conventional legal avenues. Kathleen Sgamma of the Western Energy Alliance summed it up perfectly: “WildEarth is trying to force the government to violate the law…It’s much easier to just file a frivolous lawsuit than it is to change the law through Congress.” The prospect of a “sue and settle” situation is troubling in this instance, given Interior’s prior inclination to prohibit natural resource development with the federal coal moratorium.

If successful, this suit could severely damage energy development, the U.S.’s already precarious fiscal situation and harm states’ economies, as well. Last week, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released its updated budget outlook. CBO found that the federal deficit will grow compared to the FY2016 deficit and is larger than previously predicted, specifically citing decreased revenues. Blocking off federal land from resource development would only worsen the deficit by foregoing revenues from bids, lease payments, and royalties, and the reduced employment from energy development on federal lands would also mean more joblessness and fewer taxes.

Additionally, federal land ownership requires upkeep and funding to maintain the lands, as well as payment in lieu of taxes to the affected communities and localities. Conversely, opening up federal lands to greater resource development would result in tens of billions in revenues over the near term and hundreds of billions down the road. Not to mention the potential $20.7 trillion in added GDP and roughly 3 million new jobs over the long term.
America has vast reserves of oil and gas, which can not only be produced in an environmentally sensitive way, but also have the potential to support millions of jobs and contribute to the fiscal health of the federal government. Attempts to block energy development on these lands, like this suit from the WildEarth Guardians, is nothing more than a ploy to advance an ideological goal. Policymakers should see this suit for what it really is — a litigious attempt to hinder economic growth under the guise of environmental conservancy. This attempt, and other lawsuits like it, should be understood for what they are.

Congress Should Reform Antiquities Act; Rein in Executive Branch

This week, the White House announced that it was designating 87,000 acres of land in northern Maine to as a national monument, once again demonstrating the Obama administration’s anti-democratic tendencies and their disdain for the wants and wishes of state and local leaders.

The new Katahdin Woods and Waters monument surrounds Baxter State Park and Mt. Katahdin in rural northern Maine, bordering the Penobscot River. These lands were gifted to the federal government by a private donor. Surrounding these lands are thousands of acres of deep forests and riverways used for fishing and hunting and is home to many local businesses. In particular, the forests have supported Maine’s paper and timber industries for hundreds of years.

The private owner of the land wanted it made into a National Park. However, national park designations require Congressional action. Maine’s Congressional delegation broadly disapproved of such action because Mainers are concerned, given the federal government’s track record, of reduced economic activity and a loss of jobs. Locals strongly opposed such a designation and the Maine Legislature even passed a bill disapproving of this measure.

These concerns effectively killed the possibility of designating these lands a National Park. In the end, White House ignored the state and local officials and unilaterally chose to designate it as a National Monument via the Antiquities Act.

National Parks and National Monuments differ in a few ways. Parks are administered by the National Parks Service (NPS), while Monuments can be administered by the NPS as well as a handful of other agencies. Ultimately, the end result is the same — these lands fall under the control of the federal government. The administration has used this tactic in Western states to cordon off land that would otherwise be used for energy and natural resource development. For example, the federal government owns nearly 70 percent of land in Utah, blocking oil and gas development on much of it.

Herein lies the issue: the landowners and the administration knew Congress would never designate this land a Park given Mainers’ concerns of increasing the federal estate in Maine, so the administration simply designated the land a National Monument under the Antiquities Act. The Antiquities Act allows the President “to declare by public proclamation historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures, and other objects of historic or scientific interest that are situated upon the lands owned or controlled by the Government of the United States to be national monuments.” Frequently, this results in the annexation of land that could be used for natural resources development or other commercial enterprise.

Both donating this land to the federal government and designating it a Monument is unnecessary and counterproductive, and only serves to further the narrative that the federal government can and should block off more and more land from private development. Mainers have a strong history of private landownership and conservation. If the owner wished to allow the public to use this land in perpetuity, that was certainly possible. This Monument designation will worsen the stewardship of the land and add to the growing — and disgraceful — backlog of NPS maintenance deferrals. Consider the fate of the San Gabriel Mountains National Monument as reported by the L.A. Times:

Visitors to the San Gabriel Mountains can be forgiven if they see overflowing trash bins, broken marijuana pipes, graffiti and road kill and wonder what became of President Obama‘s vision for the wilderness.

Nearly a year after he upgraded Southern California’s mountainous backyard to national monument status, with a promise of a cleaner and safer wilderness, little has changed.

Last week, Abby McCrea, 34, a marriage and family therapist who rides her bike in the mountains at least once a month, looked at the surrounding landscape and wondered aloud, “New monument? Where is it?”

Trash, broken beer bottles and other blight were present in abundance. Porta Potties and interpretive signs were covered by graffiti. Ravens pecked at dead snakes and squirrels that had been run over by drivers along a two-lane road.

Designating land as a National Monument does not mean that the land will be better cared for, or that there will even be money to care for the land. This has been a much-used tactic by the current administration to block land from energy and natural resources development, under the guise of stewardship. Contrary to the belief of this administration, land preservation and environmental stewardship is better done at the state and local level. In fact, states have proven far more effective at protecting and preserving the wilderness than the federal government. The Antiquities Act gives the President far too much power to designate lands with little thought for how they will be cared for. This also continues the trend of the federal government prohibiting lands from being used for private enterprise, particularly prohibiting energy development. Congress should look to reform the Antiquities Act in order to rein in the Executive’s power over our nation’s lands.

Congress shouldn’t rubber-stamp the LWCF

This summer, both chambers of Congress have been working towards a conference agreement between two energy bills, H.R. 8 (the base package) and S. 2012. The House passed its bill in late 2015, while the Senate agreed on its version this past April. The House then passed an amended version of the Senate bill, setting up the conference process that began in July.

The conference committee is now tasked with passing a package addressing a broad range of energy issues, including infrastructure and permitting reform, energy security, efficiency, and federal land policy, among others. While both bills cover a variety of policy areas, so far the negotiations have yet to significantly move the needle in the energy policy sphere.

However, one important policy provision is set to cause significant debate. The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) uses offshore drilling royalties to fund federal land acquisition projects. The LWCF expired at the end of FY2015, yet was reauthorized for three years in the FY2016 Omnibus negotiations. The Senate bill contains a permanent reauthorization of the LWCF, while the House amendment does not.

This impasse will likely tie up negotiations. Many environmentalists are pushing for permanent reauthorization, while a number of Republicans, led by Natural Resources Committee Chairman Rep. Bishop, oppose such a reauthorization. Rep. Bishop has long advocated for reforms to the LWCF before any reauthorization and strongly opposes permanent reauthorization. Indeed, the LWCF has strayed far from its original mandate by improperly managing its holdings and locking Americans out of more than one billions acres of land.

By and large, federal lands are poorly managed. For example, according to the Property and Environment Research Center, Montana, Idaho, New Mexico, and Arizona bring in on average $14.51 for every dollar spent on state trust lands. However, the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management loses 27 cents per dollar spent on federal land management. Furthermore, since 2010 oil production is up 113 percent on private and state lands, but up a measly 0.8 percent on federal lands.

Rubber-stamping the LWCF will only perpetuate the federal government’s inefficient land management and would be an abdication of Congressional responsibility. Whatever the House and Senate agree on should not contain a permanent reauthorization of the LWCF, and both chambers should work to reform the program to account for inefficiencies in the management of funds.